UP DATE: 03-10-13 The cat is out of the bag. Gallop polls were not the result of accepted procedures. Could it be that Christie had contact with Gallop before the Gallop polling even began and knew there was a polling ‘ringer’.
I followed this election year with keen interest, from the party primaries to present. The Republican primary did not need much media developed story telling because there was not a clear favorite and the intense competition between the candidates was such that our media could hardly keep up with the name calling and underhanded tactics provided by the candidates.
When Romney became the Republican candidate for president this all changed. Romney was a clear underdog. He provided no information that the media could hype and Obama really didn’t initially say much about Romney until after the first debate. The news was mundane. Wasn’t it? Romney couldn’t even get endorsed by his fellow Republicans. But he had a lot of money.
It seemed that the only thing the media could write about was President Obama. He did this and he did that etc: The Republicans responded by accusing the media of being biased.
Then the Media got it. They decided to make Romney the candidate that he couldn’t make himself. They would create the illusion that Romney could actually win this election. They would create their own news. They would manufacture adversity, intensity, and animosity between the candidates. They had the tools to do it and one by one the electronic news media giants began to collectively fabricate a close election.
Suddenly the polls changed as predicted by Chris Christie before the first debate. “How did he know that?” I asked myself. How did he so accurately predict on the eve of the first debate, the “Profound” change in the polls that would occur after the first debate? Stephanopoulos or someone gave Christie the “heads up about the upcoming polls” knowing that Christie would not and could not withhold this information. It would not look good if Stephanopoulos made such a prediction himself but to avoid suspicion they needed to give their new polls some credibility. Why not have it predicted?
Christie was the perfect envoy. The Jersey Governor was played like a piano. He probably doesn’t realize it today.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) raised expectations Sunday ahead of Mitt Romney’s first debate with President Obama, saying that come Thursday morning, observers will look at the race as an entirely new contest. Washington Post
“I have absolute confidence that when we get to Thursday morning, George, all of you are going to be shaking your head saying it’s a brand-new race with 33 days to go,” Christie said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”
Christie’s prediction was not supported by most of the debate experts. In fact most of them thought it was a close debate but not the slaughter as reported by the press.
I watched the debate and agreed with the experts. Both candidates had their moments however Obama didn’t seem to be himself so I gave a close victory to Romney but thought he came across as a bully.
Suddenly the next morning the polls changed. Romney was off to the races with new found energy. Energy provided by polls. Polls that were presented by the press as actual representations of our electorate. Polls that supposedly had a 3-5 % error factor. The polls continued to rise in Romney’s favor despite his statements that alienated large groups such as women, Hispanics, students, the retired, the elderly etc: The polls defied an intelligent persons reason. They defied the results of two additional debates that debate experts claimed Obama had won. After the last debate in Florida the esteemed narrator, Bob Schieffer said that the polls were so close that he dared not predict an election winner. Mr. Schieffer you are either a part of the problem or your not as intelligent as you tell people.
It just seemed to me that these polls couldn’t be stopped. Even Romney himself couldn’t stop them from rising, no matter how hard he tried. They were even rising in states that Romney hadn’t campaigned in much such as Pennsylvania. Romney’s campaign staff in Pennsylvania is less than 60 and the Obama campaign staff claim thousands that have been in place since 2008.
What is a poll anyway and who provides them and who pays for them? Any person or entity can poll the public using the internet or telephone. The amazing thing to me is how calling as little as 700 people or even as many as 10,000 people can be considered representative of the 315 million people living in this country. A sample of 10,000 people is about 192 people per state but most poll samples used by the press during this election period average less than 1,000 total people or 19 people per state.
I have a little experience with pollsters. My experience is ancient history but assuming that things in the polling business have not changed much, the polls have a profit motive for the pollsters as well as the person seeking the poll results.
Some pollsters are hired to perform specific polls and some polls are generated by the pollsters themselves and are then sold on the open market. Pollsters claim their accuracy just as insurance companies predicts how many claims they will pay out. Pollsters establish the questions asked during the polls and in a perfect world these questions are designed to produce the desired results. Insurance companies insure only people who have good driving records and limited claims thus producing the profitable results. Limited claims.
Pollsters know that in the event the results of their polls are considerably different than the results of their colleagues they have a problem. The problem is, who is correct and why? Wouldn’t we all like to know the answer to that question.
So once the Poll results are rolling down the hill to the bottom, there is no changing direction for any of them unless they all change direction. It doesn’t really matter who continues the polling and who is paying for them, they cannot change their results unless they all do. Of course, this analogy only applies to those pollsters who are considered reputable. And one last thought on pollsters. I suggest that most of the money paid to pollsters comes from the media.
You might ask what I’m getting at with the above rambling. Its this.
I spend a lot of time on the political and non political social networks and blogs. I believe I have a reasonable sense of the sentiment of the nation as I did in 2008. I was right then and I think I am right today. These polls are incorrect characterizations . I believe that the reality is that the polls are not large enough to represent much of anything. I also believe that the press has used them to paint a picture of a close election to sell their wares.
My common sense says that Romney will lose this election and that it will not be a close election. That being said, I also believe that no matter who wins, the press will generate a controversy over the accuracy of the election results of a magnitude that this country has never seen.